[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4249?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13085739#comment-13085739
 ] 

Kathey Marsden commented on DERBY-4249:
---------------------------------------

On the permissions issues it might help to add to derby_tests.policy for 
derbyTesting.jar and derbyTesting.codeclasses, something like
  permission java.io.FilePermission "${java.home}${/}-",  "execute" 

but I am not sure why other tests that use this method don't have the same 
problem.


> Create a simple store recovery test in JUnit
> --------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: DERBY-4249
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DERBY-4249
>             Project: Derby
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Test
>    Affects Versions: 10.6.1.0
>            Reporter: Kathey Marsden
>            Assignee: Siddharth Srivastava
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: d4249.diff, d4249_1.diff, d4249_2.diff, d4249_3.diff, 
> derby4249.diff, derby4249.diff
>
>
> It would be good to be able to start converting the store  recovery tests  or 
> at least be able to write new recovery tests in JUnit.   We could start by 
> writing a simple recovery test just to establish the framework.  The test 
> should.
> -  Connect, create a table, commit and shutdown the database.
> -  fork a jvm, add one row, commit, add another row, exit  the jvm.
> -  Reconnect with the first jvm and verify that the first row is there and 
> the second is not.
> I guess the main thing to decide is how to spawn the second jvm and check 
> results.    I tend to think the second jvm should actually execute another 
> JUnit test, verify the exit code (assuming a failed test has a non-zero exit 
> code) and then put the output in the fail assertion if it fails so it shows 
> up in the report at the end of the Suite execution.   I think we could create 
> a test runner that takes a class and a specific test to run instead of the 
> whole suite, so we could keep our methods consolidated in a single class for 
> the test, but all pure conjecture at this point.  I'll have to give it a try, 
> but wanted to first see if folks thought this was a reasonable approach.
>  

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Reply via email to